##
##
## | | level | ASD | TD | p | test |
## |:-------------------------:|:------:|:----------------------:|:----------------------:|:------:|:----:|
## | **n** | | 39 | 31 | | |
## | **SEX (%)** | Female | 11 (28.2) | 14 (45.2) | 0.223 | |
## | | Male | 28 (71.8) | 17 (54.8) | | |
## | **BilingualCoded (%)** | 0 | 14 (38.9) | 18 (58.1) | 0.186 | |
## | | 1 | 22 (61.1) | 13 (41.9) | | |
## | **V1.Age (mean (SD))** | | 38.69 (13.47) | 37.61 (14.20) | 0.746 | |
## | **MEL_cat (mean (SD))** | | 3.56 (1.44) | 4.42 (0.99) | 0.007 | |
## | **INR (mean (SD))** | | 3.36 (2.48) | 4.22 (2.14) | 0.136 | |
## | **SES1 (mean (SD))** | | -0.40 (1.98) | 0.54 (1.66) | 0.038 | |
## | **ExpLang_T (mean (SD))** | | 32.97 (11.55) | 48.77 (11.52) | <0.001 | |
## | **RecLang_T (mean (SD))** | | 33.61 (12.66) | 53.32 (11.13) | <0.001 | |
## | **ELC_SS (mean (SD))** | | 73.45 (19.66) | 104.94 (16.57) | <0.001 | |
## | **TBV (mean (SD))** | | 1077556.59 (105504.07) | 1045805.30 (115665.35) | 0.235 | |
##
## Table: Participant Summary Table for Anatomical Analyses
| Â | lh_transversetemporal_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 2.77 | 2.14 – 3.39 | <0.001 |
| Income:Needs | 0.03 | 0.00 – 0.06 | 0.035 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Observations | 65 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.505 / 0.489 | ||
| Â | lh_superiortemporal_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 2.72 | 2.22 – 3.22 | <0.001 |
| Income:Needs | 0.02 | 0.00 – 0.05 | 0.027 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Observations | 65 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.480 / 0.463 | ||
| Â | rh_parsopercularis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.42 | 2.74 – 4.11 | <0.001 |
| Income:Needs | 0.03 | 0.00 – 0.06 | 0.040 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | 0.001 |
| Bilingual | 0.25 | 0.11 – 0.39 | 0.001 |
| Observations | 64 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.328 / 0.294 | ||
Income to needs ratio predicts lh transverse temporal and superior temporal LGI, controlling for age and TBV (no significant dx by INR interaction), and right hemisphere pars opercularis LGI, controlling for TBV, age, and bilingualism.
Diagnosis is associated with lh pars opercularis LGI when controlling for TBV, age, sex/gender, and bilingualism.
| Â | lh_parsopercularis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.15 | 2.47 – 3.82 | <0.001 |
| Dx | -0.14 | -0.27 – -0.01 | 0.031 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Sex | -0.19 | -0.33 – -0.05 | 0.009 |
| Observations | 67 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.423 / 0.395 | ||
Sex predicts lh pars opercularis LGI, controlling for TBV and dx (removed age bc it was insignificant). Boys show higher lh pars opercularis LGI than girls.
| Â | lh_parsopercularis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.15 | 2.47 – 3.82 | <0.001 |
| Sex | -0.19 | -0.33 – -0.05 | 0.009 |
| Dx | -0.14 | -0.27 – -0.01 | 0.031 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Observations | 67 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.423 / 0.395 | ||
| Â | rh_parsopercularis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.61 | 2.91 – 4.31 | <0.001 |
| Bilingual | 0.26 | 0.13 – 0.40 | <0.001 |
| TBV | 0.00 | -0.00 – 0.00 | 0.065 |
| Age | 0.01 | -0.00 – 0.01 | 0.077 |
| INR | 0.03 | 0.00 – 0.06 | 0.038 |
| Observations | 64 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.363 / 0.320 | ||
| Â | rh_parstriangularis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.62 | 2.82 – 4.43 | <0.001 |
| Bilingual | 0.22 | 0.06 – 0.38 | 0.006 |
| TBV | 0.00 | -0.00 – 0.00 | 0.578 |
| Age | 0.00 | -0.00 – 0.01 | 0.188 |
| INR | 0.02 | -0.01 – 0.05 | 0.220 |
| Observations | 64 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.180 / 0.124 | ||
| Â | rh_transversetemporal_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.13 | 2.41 – 3.86 | <0.001 |
| Bilingual | 0.23 | 0.09 – 0.37 | 0.002 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Age | 0.00 | -0.00 – 0.01 | 0.340 |
| INR | 0.02 | -0.01 – 0.05 | 0.164 |
| Observations | 64 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.472 / 0.436 | ||
Exposure to more than one language is associated with higher LGI in the right hemisphere pars opercularis, pars triangularis, and transverse temporal gyrus, controlling for income:needs ratio, TBV, and age.
| Â | lh_parsorbitalis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.91 | 3.27 – 4.54 | <0.001 |
| RecLang T | -0.02 | -0.04 – -0.01 | 0.005 |
| Dx | -0.53 | -1.02 – -0.04 | 0.034 |
| Age | 0.01 | 0.00 – 0.01 | 0.017 |
| RL by Dx Intxn | 0.01 | 0.00 – 0.02 | 0.019 |
| Observations | 66 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.215 / 0.164 | ||
| Â | lh_parsorbitalis_lgi | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.52 | 2.99 – 4.04 | <0.001 |
| RL AE | -0.02 | -0.03 – -0.00 | 0.013 |
| Dx | -0.31 | -0.65 – 0.02 | 0.066 |
| Age | 0.01 | 0.00 – 0.01 | 0.022 |
| RL by Dx Intxn | 0.01 | 0.00 – 0.02 | 0.046 |
| Observations | 66 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.183 / 0.130 | ||
INR is positively associated with LH middle temporal gyrus cortical thickness, controlling for age, sex, and bilingualism. Bilingualism is negatively associated with with LH middle temporal gyrus CT. Age is also negatively associated with CT in this region.
Bilingualism associated with lower RH pars opercularis CT, controlling for INR, age, and sex.
| Â | lh_middletemporal_CT | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.34 | 3.18 – 3.51 | <0.001 |
| Income:Needs | 0.02 | 0.00 – 0.03 | 0.036 |
| Age | -0.00 | -0.01 – -0.00 | 0.004 |
| Sex | 0.05 | -0.02 – 0.13 | 0.169 |
| Bilingualism | -0.11 | -0.18 – -0.04 | 0.004 |
| Observations | 66 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.275 / 0.227 | ||
| Â | lh_parsorbitalis_CT | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 3.42 | 3.17 – 3.67 | <0.001 |
| Dx | 0.15 | 0.03 – 0.27 | 0.014 |
| Age | -0.01 | -0.01 – -0.01 | <0.001 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.288 / 0.267 | ||
Dx predicts left hemisphere pars orbitalis CT, controlling for age and bilingualism (sex not a significant predictor).
INR is not significantly associated with SA when controlling for other covariates.
Neighborhood advantage associated with left hemisphere pars orbitalis SA and right hemisphere pars triangularis SA
| Â | lh_parsorbitalis_area | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | -57.59 | -225.59 – 110.41 | 0.496 |
| SES1 | -9.84 | -18.66 – -1.02 | 0.029 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Age | 2.36 | 0.94 – 3.79 | 0.002 |
| Observations | 69 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.593 / 0.574 | ||
| Â | rh_parstriangularis_area | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | -470.22 | -1057.97 – 117.54 | 0.115 |
| SES1 | -38.02 | -68.88 – -7.17 | 0.017 |
| TBV | 0.00 | 0.00 – 0.00 | <0.001 |
| Age | 4.08 | -0.91 – 9.08 | 0.108 |
| Observations | 69 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.485 / 0.461 | ||
##
##
## | | level | ASD | TD | p | test |
## |:-------------------------:|:------:|:-------------:|:--------------:|:------:|:----:|
## | **n** | | 36 | 37 | | |
## | **sex (%)** | Female | 8 (22.2) | 16 (43.2) | 0.096 | |
## | | Male | 28 (77.8) | 21 (56.8) | | |
## | **BilingualCoded (%)** | 0 | 15 (44.1) | 23 (62.2) | 0.199 | |
## | | 1 | 19 (55.9) | 14 (37.8) | | |
## | **MEL_cat (mean (SD))** | | 3.41 (1.54) | 4.43 (1.04) | 0.002 | |
## | **INR (mean (SD))** | | 3.10 (2.45) | 4.45 (2.26) | 0.020 | |
## | **SES1 (mean (SD))** | | -0.40 (1.91) | 0.52 (1.59) | 0.032 | |
## | **ExpLang_T (mean (SD))** | | 30.89 (13.02) | 48.97 (11.01) | <0.001 | |
## | **RecLang_T (mean (SD))** | | 32.29 (12.60) | 53.68 (11.54) | <0.001 | |
## | **ELC_SS (mean (SD))** | | 70.89 (20.48) | 105.08 (16.35) | <0.001 | |
## | **RMSD (mean (SD))** | | 0.12 (0.04) | 0.11 (0.04) | 0.097 | |
##
## Table: Participant Summary Table for FC Data
![]()
FC Matrices (Fisher's transformed z- scores)
![]()
ASD Language FC Matrix)
![]()
TD Language FC Matrix)
There are no significant differences in FC between any regions tested at uncorrect p = 0.05.
Bivariate Plot
Bivariate Plot
Bivariate Plot
INR predicts R-IFG-L-pSTS FC (z-scores), controlling for RMSD (not significant), dx (not significant), sex (not significant), and bilingualism (not significant) -- no significant dx by INR interaction. However, this association is no longer significant when controlling for SES1 (also not significant when controlling for INR, although they're both significant in the absence of one another)
| Â | R.IFG.L.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.36 | 0.13 – 0.59 | 0.003 |
| Income:Needs | -0.02 | -0.04 – -0.00 | 0.033 |
| Sex | -0.08 | -0.17 – 0.01 | 0.098 |
| Dx | 0.04 | -0.05 – 0.13 | 0.370 |
| Observations | 68 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.098 / 0.055 | ||
Neighborhood advantage predicts L-pSTS-R.pSTS FC, R-MTG-L-pSTS FC, L-IFG R-IFG FC, R-STG R-pSTS FC, R-STG L-pSTS FC, R-STG L-IFG controlling for RMSD, dx, age, and bilingualism, (many of these are not sig. covars).
Neighborhood advantage predicts R-IFG-L-pSTS FC (z-scores), controlling for RMSD, dx, age, and bilingualism, although none are sig. However, this association is not significant when controlling for INR.
| Â | L.pSTS.R.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.45 | 0.12 – 0.79 | 0.009 |
| SES1 | -0.05 | -0.09 – -0.01 | 0.016 |
| RMSD | 0.79 | -0.94 – 2.51 | 0.364 |
| Bilingualism | -0.08 | -0.22 – 0.06 | 0.260 |
| Dx | 0.05 | -0.09 – 0.19 | 0.490 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.113 / 0.058 | ||
| Â | R.MTG.L.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.07 | -0.22 – 0.36 | 0.632 |
| SES1 | -0.11 | -0.22 – -0.00 | 0.045 |
| RMSD | 1.31 | -0.30 – 2.92 | 0.109 |
| Dx | 0.13 | 0.00 – 0.26 | 0.044 |
| SES1 by Dx | 0.05 | -0.02 – 0.12 | 0.169 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.158 / 0.106 | ||
| Â | R.IFG.L.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.15 | -0.00 – 0.31 | 0.052 |
| SES1 | -0.03 | -0.05 – -0.00 | 0.040 |
| Dx | 0.05 | -0.04 – 0.14 | 0.297 |
| Bilingualism | -0.04 | -0.13 – 0.05 | 0.423 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.071 / 0.028 | ||
| Â | L.IFG.R.IFG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.35 | 0.18 – 0.52 | <0.001 |
| SES1 | -0.03 | -0.06 – -0.00 | 0.042 |
| Dx | -0.02 | -0.12 – 0.08 | 0.657 |
| Bilingualism | 0.00 | -0.10 – 0.10 | 0.984 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.077 / 0.036 | ||
| Â | R.STG.R.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.53 | 0.34 – 0.73 | <0.001 |
| SES1 | 0.05 | -0.05 – 0.15 | 0.281 |
| Dx | 0.04 | -0.07 – 0.16 | 0.444 |
| Bilingualism | -0.11 | -0.22 – 0.01 | 0.081 |
| SES by Dx | -0.07 | -0.13 – 0.00 | 0.051 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.141 / 0.088 | ||
| Â | R.STG.L.pSTS | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.31 | 0.11 – 0.51 | 0.003 |
| SES1 | -0.05 | -0.08 – -0.01 | 0.005 |
| Dx | -0.01 | -0.12 – 0.11 | 0.928 |
| Bilingualism | -0.07 | -0.18 – 0.05 | 0.256 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.123 / 0.083 | ||
| Â | R.STG.L.IFG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.08 | -0.07 – 0.23 | 0.275 |
| SES1 | -0.04 | -0.06 – -0.01 | 0.005 |
| Dx | 0.04 | -0.05 – 0.12 | 0.373 |
| Bilingualism | -0.06 | -0.15 – 0.02 | 0.150 |
| Observations | 70 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.126 / 0.086 | ||
MEL is not a significant predictor of Lang FC when controlling for RMSD, dx, sex, and bilingualism.
There is a significant age by dx interaction on L-IFG L-MTG FC
Bilingualism predicts L-IFG L-MTG FC, controlling for age, dx, and ageXdx effects.
Bilingualism is associated with L-IFG R-MTG FC
Sex predicts L-STG R-MTG
Dx Predicts L-STG L-IFG
| Â | L.IFG.L.MTG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.57 | 0.17 – 0.97 | 0.006 |
| Bilingualism | -0.09 | -0.16 – -0.01 | 0.030 |
| Age | -0.01 | -0.02 – 0.00 | 0.064 |
| Dx | -0.28 | -0.51 – -0.06 | 0.015 |
| Age by Dx | 0.01 | 0.00 – 0.01 | 0.010 |
| Observations | 71 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.211 / 0.163 | ||
| Â | L.IFG.R.MTG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.12 | -0.09 – 0.34 | 0.259 |
| Bilingualism | -0.13 | -0.21 – -0.04 | 0.004 |
| RMSD | 0.19 | -0.88 – 1.27 | 0.721 |
| Dx | 0.03 | -0.05 – 0.12 | 0.427 |
| Observations | 71 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.150 / 0.112 | ||
| Â | L.STG.R.MTG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Coeffcient | Estimates | CI (95%) | p-Value |
| Intercept | 0.47 | 0.26 – 0.68 | <0.001 |
| Sex/Gender | -0.11 | -0.19 – -0.03 | 0.011 |
| Dx | -0.06 | -0.14 – 0.02 | 0.166 |
| Bilingualism | -0.01 | -0.09 – 0.07 | 0.817 |
| Observations | 71 | ||
| R2 / R2 adjusted | 0.104 / 0.064 | ||